Laparoscopic hysterectomy versus open abdominal hysterectomy for women with a benign gynaecological condition: the LAVA RCT.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
T Justin Clark, Lina Antoun, Rebecca Woolley, Sheriden Bevan, Kamila Ziomek, William McKinnon, Paul Smith, Kevin Cooper, Ertan Saridogan, Bibi Zeyah Sairally, Jayne Fullard, Monique Morgan, Lynsay Matthews, Laura Jones, Tracy Roberts, Lee Middleton
{"title":"Laparoscopic hysterectomy versus open abdominal hysterectomy for women with a benign gynaecological condition: the LAVA RCT.","authors":"T Justin Clark, Lina Antoun, Rebecca Woolley, Sheriden Bevan, Kamila Ziomek, William McKinnon, Paul Smith, Kevin Cooper, Ertan Saridogan, Bibi Zeyah Sairally, Jayne Fullard, Monique Morgan, Lynsay Matthews, Laura Jones, Tracy Roberts, Lee Middleton","doi":"10.3310/GJTC1718","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The comparative rates of major complications and recovery times between laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy for benign gynaecological conditions remain uncertain.</p><p><strong>Objective(s): </strong>To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to abdominal hysterectomy in women with benign gynaecological conditions.</p><p><strong>Design and methods: </strong>A parallel, open, non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised controlled, expertise-based surgery trial with integrated health economic evaluation and an internal pilot with an embedded qualitative process evaluation, and a post-closure survey after recruitment ended.</p><p><strong>Setting and participants: </strong>Women in secondary care requiring hysterectomy and eligible for either surgical method.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Laparoscopic hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ level III) up to 6 completed weeks post surgery, and the key secondary outcome was time from surgery to resumption of usual activities using the personalised Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function questionnaire. The principal outcome for the economic evaluation was to be cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 12 months post surgery and was feasibility and acceptability for the qualitative process evaluation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred and fifty-two patients were screened from 13 open sites over 13 months, 156 (62%) were eligible and 75 (49%) randomised. Of the 53 women not randomised, 23 (43%) preferred laparoscopic hysterectomy and 6 (11%) abdominal hysterectomy. About 32/39 (82%) and 30/36 (83%) participants randomised to laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy, respectively, had their surgery, of which 31/32 (97%) and 25/30 (83%) received their allocated route of hysterectomy. Major complications occurred in 2/32 (6%) laparoscopic hysterectomy versus 4/30 (13%) abdominal hysterectomy groups. There was no difference in time to resumption of activities [median (interquartile range, <i>N</i>) 7.5 weeks (3.6-8.2, 25) laparoscopic hysterectomy vs. 7.5 weeks (5.5-10.6, 26) abdominal hysterectomy groups] or quality of recovery [mean (standard deviation, <i>N</i>) 81.1 (13.4, 27) vs. 72.3 (17.6, 22) respectively; adjusted mean difference 7.2, 95% confidence interval -3.2 to 17.6]. The qualitative evaluation found that the trial was viewed positively by women and healthcare professionals. The reasons for failure to recruit from 21 sites open or in set-up were lack of research/clinical capacity imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic (14, 67%) and lack of clinician equipoise (11, 52%).</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The main limitation was failure to recruit, resulting in a final sample of 75 patients from a target of 3250. At the time of analysis, 13 (17%) randomised patients had not had surgery, and 6 (8%) did not adhere to the allocated route of hysterectomy. The planned health economic evaluation could not be performed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The LAVA trial was acceptable for women and healthcare professionals but closed early due to the adverse impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of clinician equipoise. No significant differences in complications or recovery between laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy were observed. However, early trial cessation because of recruitment challenges limit inferences. Future large-scale trials are important, especially as laparoscopic hysterectomy and robotic techniques become standard. Success will depend on innovative trial designs and strategies that engage clinicians and research departments.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>Lessons learnt from the failed LAVA trial should be used to inform the management and designs of future studies in benign gynaecological surgery.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR128991.</p>","PeriodicalId":12898,"journal":{"name":"Health technology assessment","volume":"30 14","pages":"1-28"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12914755/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/GJTC1718","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The comparative rates of major complications and recovery times between laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy for benign gynaecological conditions remain uncertain.

Objective(s): To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to abdominal hysterectomy in women with benign gynaecological conditions.

Design and methods: A parallel, open, non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised controlled, expertise-based surgery trial with integrated health economic evaluation and an internal pilot with an embedded qualitative process evaluation, and a post-closure survey after recruitment ended.

Setting and participants: Women in secondary care requiring hysterectomy and eligible for either surgical method.

Interventions: Laparoscopic hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ level III) up to 6 completed weeks post surgery, and the key secondary outcome was time from surgery to resumption of usual activities using the personalised Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function questionnaire. The principal outcome for the economic evaluation was to be cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 12 months post surgery and was feasibility and acceptability for the qualitative process evaluation.

Results: Two hundred and fifty-two patients were screened from 13 open sites over 13 months, 156 (62%) were eligible and 75 (49%) randomised. Of the 53 women not randomised, 23 (43%) preferred laparoscopic hysterectomy and 6 (11%) abdominal hysterectomy. About 32/39 (82%) and 30/36 (83%) participants randomised to laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy, respectively, had their surgery, of which 31/32 (97%) and 25/30 (83%) received their allocated route of hysterectomy. Major complications occurred in 2/32 (6%) laparoscopic hysterectomy versus 4/30 (13%) abdominal hysterectomy groups. There was no difference in time to resumption of activities [median (interquartile range, N) 7.5 weeks (3.6-8.2, 25) laparoscopic hysterectomy vs. 7.5 weeks (5.5-10.6, 26) abdominal hysterectomy groups] or quality of recovery [mean (standard deviation, N) 81.1 (13.4, 27) vs. 72.3 (17.6, 22) respectively; adjusted mean difference 7.2, 95% confidence interval -3.2 to 17.6]. The qualitative evaluation found that the trial was viewed positively by women and healthcare professionals. The reasons for failure to recruit from 21 sites open or in set-up were lack of research/clinical capacity imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic (14, 67%) and lack of clinician equipoise (11, 52%).

Limitations: The main limitation was failure to recruit, resulting in a final sample of 75 patients from a target of 3250. At the time of analysis, 13 (17%) randomised patients had not had surgery, and 6 (8%) did not adhere to the allocated route of hysterectomy. The planned health economic evaluation could not be performed.

Conclusions: The LAVA trial was acceptable for women and healthcare professionals but closed early due to the adverse impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of clinician equipoise. No significant differences in complications or recovery between laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy were observed. However, early trial cessation because of recruitment challenges limit inferences. Future large-scale trials are important, especially as laparoscopic hysterectomy and robotic techniques become standard. Success will depend on innovative trial designs and strategies that engage clinicians and research departments.

Future work: Lessons learnt from the failed LAVA trial should be used to inform the management and designs of future studies in benign gynaecological surgery.

Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR128991.

腹腔镜子宫切除术与开放式腹部子宫切除术对女性良性妇科疾病:LAVA RCT。
背景:腹腔镜子宫切除术和腹部子宫切除术对妇科良性疾病的主要并发症和恢复时间的比较率仍然不确定。目的:评估腹腔镜子宫切除术与腹部子宫切除术在妇科良性疾病妇女中的临床和成本效益。设计和方法:一项平行、开放、非劣效性、多中心、随机对照、基于专业知识的外科试验,采用综合卫生经济评价,一项内部试点,采用嵌入式定性过程评价,并在招募结束后进行结束后调查。环境和参与者:需要子宫切除术的二级护理妇女,符合任何一种手术方法的条件。干预措施:腹腔镜子宫切除术与腹部子宫切除术。主要结局指标:主要结局指标是术后6周内的主要并发症(Clavien-Dindo≥III级),关键的次要结局指标是从手术到恢复正常活动的时间,采用个性化的患者报告结局测量信息系统身体功能问卷。经济评价的主要结果是术后12个月每个质量调整生命年的成本,以及定性过程评价的可行性和可接受性。结果:在13个月的时间里,从13个开放站点筛选了252例患者,156例(62%)符合条件,75例(49%)随机分组。在53名未随机分组的女性中,23名(43%)倾向于腹腔镜子宫切除术,6名(11%)倾向于腹部子宫切除术。随机选择腹腔镜子宫切除术和腹式子宫切除术的参与者分别约32/39(82%)和30/36(83%)进行了手术,其中31/32(97%)和25/30(83%)接受了分配的子宫切除术路线。2/32(6%)腹腔镜子宫切除术组与4/30(13%)腹部子宫切除术组发生主要并发症。恢复活动的时间[中位数(四分位数间距,N) 7.5周(3.6-8.2,25)腹腔镜子宫切除术组与7.5周(5.5-10.6,26)腹部子宫切除术组]或恢复质量[平均(标准差,N)分别为81.1(13.4,27)和72.3 (17.6,22);调整后平均差值为7.2,95%置信区间为-3.2 ~ 17.6]。定性评价发现,妇女和保健专业人员对该试验持积极态度。未能从21个开放或在建的站点招聘人员的原因是COVID-19大流行造成的缺乏研究/临床能力(14.67%)和缺乏临床医生平衡(11.52%)。限制:主要限制是招募失败,导致最终样本从3250名目标患者中筛选出75名患者。在分析时,13例(17%)随机患者未进行手术,6例(8%)未坚持子宫切除术的分配路线。无法进行计划的卫生经济评价。结论:LAVA试验对女性和医疗保健专业人员是可以接受的,但由于COVID-19大流行的不利影响和缺乏临床医生的平衡,该试验提前结束。腹腔镜子宫切除术与腹部子宫切除术在并发症和恢复方面无显著差异。然而,由于招募挑战而提前终止试验限制了推断。未来的大规模试验很重要,特别是当腹腔镜子宫切除术和机器人技术成为标准时。成功将取决于临床医生和研究部门参与的创新试验设计和策略。未来的工作:从失败的LAVA试验中吸取的教训应该用于告知良性妇科手术未来研究的管理和设计。资助:本摘要介绍了由国家卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)卫生技术评估计划资助的独立研究,奖励号为NIHR128991。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health technology assessment
Health technology assessment 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publishes research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书